Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amended claims filed 6/17/25 are acknowledged; claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, 17, and 20-26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15, 17, and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 5087365) in view of Stalnaker, et al. (US 10967307) in further view of Paramhans et al. (US 20230110594).
CLAIM 1: Davis discloses a self-cleaning filter apparatus for a wellbore fluid system. The apparatus comprises an outer housing (12) in fluid communication with a source of a fluid via an inlet port (21); a filter element (40) positionable within the outer housing and including perforations through which the fluid may pass while obstructing passage of impurities; an outlet port (23) provided on the outer housing for discharging filtered fluid from the outer housing; and at least one scraper blade (103) disposed within the outer housing and engageable with an upstream wall of the filter element to dislodge accumulated impurities from the upstream wall. A collection bin disposed below the filter element for receiving the accumulated impurities removed from the filter element (in bottom cap 20). A debris discharge valve (30A) is provided in the collection bin. An outlet pipe (147) is coupled to the outlet port.
Davis fails to disclose at least one data collection device operable to detect a parameter indicative of a flow of the fluid through the filter element or the scraper blade acting in response to detecting a parameter indicative of a reduction in flow of the fluid through the filter element with the at least one data collection device, a downstream fluid sampling port defined in the output pipe downstream of the collection bin through which an oil content of the fluid exiting the outlet port may be monitored, or a controller operably coupled to the debris discharge valve to open the debris discharge valve based on the oil content of the fluid exiting the outlet port, wherein the controller opens the debris discharge valve in response to detecting through the downstream fluid sampling port that the oil content of the fluid exiting the outlet port is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Stalnaker discloses a data collection device (sensors 550, 560) indicative of a of a flow of the fluid (via pressure) through a filter element (300). A cleaning operation is actuated in response to detecting a parameter (pressure difference) indicative of a reduction in flow of the fluid through the filter element with the at least one data collection device (see col. 17, line 47 – col. 18, line 9). A controller (700) is coupled a debris discharge valve (520) to open the debris discharge valve in response to detecting a quality of the fluid exiting the outlet port (see Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the filter apparatus of Davis with the data collection and use of Stalnaker with a reasonable expectation of success because Stalnaker teaches that reliance on data gathered can automate the cleaning system to eliminate the need of human monitoring (see col. 18, lines 9-19).
Paramhans discloses a downhole tool.
Paramhans discloses a filter (screen 204) associated with a sampling port (206). The downstream fluid sampling port (206) is monitored via sampling tool (200). The sampling tool detects the oil content of the fluid (see US 7841402; incorporated via paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sampling port of Paramhans with the apparatus of Davis-Stainaker at the claimed location as a combination of known prior art elements as Paramhans teaches the use of the port allows for taking samples at multiple points and maintaining sample integrity by blocking rocks and the like and Stainaker teaches the data collection occurring downstream of the filtration (see Fig. 12).
CLAIM 2: The filter element is cylindrical (see Figures) and the at least one scraper blade is mounted to a central rotor (51) rotatable about a central axis extending through the filter element.
CLAIM 3: An electric motor (61) is operably coupled to the rotor to rotate the motor in response to detecting the parameter indicative of the reduction in the flow of the fluid through the filter element.
CLAIM 4: The at least one data collection device includes: an upstream pressure sensor operable to detect a pressure of the fluid upstream of the filter element; and a downstream pressure sensor operable to detect a pressure of the fluid downstream of the filter element (see Stalnaker, col. 17, line 47 – col. 18, line 9 discussing calculating pressure difference from those sensors).
The electric motor of Davis is operable to rotate the rotor in response to the upstream and downstream pressure sensors detecting a pressure differential above a predetermined threshold.
CLAIM 5: The Stalnaker controller (700) is communicatively coupled to the upstream and downstream pressure sensors and the electric motor, the controller being operable to compare the pressure differential to the predetermined threshold and to instruct the motor to operate when the pressure differential is above the predetermined threshold.
CLAIM 8: Davis fails to disclose a bypass line extending around the outer housing and at least one valve operable to direct the fluid into either the outer housing or the bypass line.
Examiner takes official notice that bypass lines are well known in the art as a means of isolating a part from fluid flow without stopping the flow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the filter apparatus of Davis-Stalnaker with the known bypass line with a reasonable expectation of success to allow flow to the filter to be stopped for maintenance of the filter apparatus.
CLAIM 9: Paramhans discloses an injection wellbore in fluid communication with the outlet port (see Figures) and using a pump to pump filtered fluid (paragraph 0049).
CLAIMS 10-12 and 15: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
CLAIM 17: Paramhans discloses the at least one data collection device includes a residual oil analyzer coupled to a downstream fluid sampling port in an output pipe coupled to the outlet port (see US 7841402; incorporated via paragraph 0037).
CLAIMS 20: Davies teaches the use of drains (see pipe 26); it would be obvious utilize on the bypass line.
CLAIM 21: Davies teaches the use of valves (see 21A), it would be obvious to utilize on the bypass line.
CLAIM 22: This claims is inherent to claim 20.
CLAIM 23: The combination fails to disclose injecting an inert gas into the bypass line through the drain.
Examiner takes official notice that injecting inert gas is well known as a means of cleaning a system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination system with the well known step of injecting inert gas with a reasonable expectation of success as a means of cleaning the system.
CLAIM 24: The combination fails to disclose a radially outermost edge of the at least one scraper blade includes bristles, a brush, or a rubber wiper operable to engage the upstream wall and is constructed with a plurality of ribs and openings defined therebetween; instead Davies teaches the blades have a plastic wear surface to engage the surface (col. 6, lines 23-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the edge surface of the scraper blade to have one of the alternative edges as Davies teaches the modification to minimize the wear on the surface, which is the same function.
CLAIM 25. The combination fails to disclose the at least one scraper blade includes a spiral blade operable to continuously engage the upstream wall at a single- point; instead Davies teaches the blades have a plastic wear surface to engage the surface (col. 6, lines 23-28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the edge surface of the scraper blade to have one of the alternative edges as Davies teaches the modification to minimize the wear on the surface, which is the same function.
CLAIM 26: Davies discloses a plurality of ports, such as an upstream fluid sampling port defined in the input pipe upstream of the collection bin through which a quality of the fluid entering the input pipe may be monitored.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the prior art fails to teach the location of the downstream sampling port to be downstream of the collection bin. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the teachings of the prior art. Davies teaches that the collection bin communicates with the outlet flow. Stalnaker teaches placing the sensors downstream of the filtration. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider this teaching to place the sampling port downstream of other parts of the system to get an accurate measurement of the fluids in the system to ensure that the parts are functioning properly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights